from the why-not-just-give-credit? dept

The Jonathan Coulton / Glee dispute has been getting a fair bit of attention lately, but it appears that Glee runs into this sort of issue quite frequently. Just a few weeks before all of this happened with Coulton, there was an article in Theater Mania about a choreographer pissed off that Fox refused to credit him for using his dance moves in a Glee rendition of "Let's Have a Kiki," by The Scissor Sisters. The song and the choreography (which was done by Brad Landers for free, without a contract, but with a promise to pay later if any money was ever made) became something of a minor viral hit last year, with a bunch of YouTube videos of people doing the same moves.

You can see the original below:

And... the Glee version, starring Sarah Jessica Parker:

It's pretty clearly a copy. Is there a legal claim there? Well... maybe. Choreography is copyrightable, and we've seen some lawsuits happen, but Landers was somewhat limited in what he could do because of the lack of a full contract and since he didn't register the copyright. In fact, despite Landers' complaints, one could argue pretty persuasively that he was made much better off by this situation. Thanks to the song appearing in Glee, that handshake deal finally paid off in terms of cash:

The Scissor Sisters, after receiving a sizable sum from Fox and Spirit Music for the rights to their song, paid Landers just as they had promised during that handshake.

What's interesting is that what upset Landers (and Coulton) was something that actually had little to do with copyright at all. Both were most perturbed by the lack of credit from Fox:

From the moment Landers saw the Tweet about "Kiki" on Glee, he has pursued one thing: credit.... Since, Landers has only pursued two things from Glee: confirmation that his choreography was being used in the November 29th episode, and some kind of documentation that stated his work was his work.

All of this raises a big question: why are Fox and Glee so averse to giving credit? It's been discussed many times before that credit or attribution is often much more important to artists than copyright itself. In fact, a recent study showed very strong evidence that credit has significant value to artists, often outweighing the value of any copyright claim.

So why doesn't Fox provide such credit?

It's free to do so. It basically costs them nothing, other than to add the names to the flashing credits at the end that nobody reads, or (better yet) in online notes to the show, which perhaps people will read. I've never understood why people are stingy with credit in such situations. Some suspect that (ironically) it may be copyright law itself that makes companies stingy with credit, since it opens up at least the potential of further legal ramifications. For example, if it's later found that a use is infringing, they can make a stronger argument that its "willful," potentially tripling any damages award. In other cases, it may just be general stinginess, and a feeling that the original creators don't deserve the credit, or that the people on the show would greedily prefer that they get the credit for such "creative" interpretations.

In the end, though, it seems like it would be a nice and neighborly thing to do to provide credit where possible, even if not legally required, and even if Fox wants to claim fair use. It would seem likely that such a simple free move would actually lead to much greater appreciation and support, rather than anger towards the show and its producers.

from the how-messed-up-is-our-system dept

Want to know just how messed up our copyright system is, and just how out of sync it is with the way people feel about copyright and what makes sense? Just know this: between Jonathan Coulton and Fox, concerning the dispute over Fox's Gleeusing Coulton's rendition of Baby Got Back on their show -- you could make an argument that Coulton may have actually exposed himself to more copyright infringement problems than Fox did.

Allow me to explain. When the whole thing first broke, we thought that Coulton took the right approach in basically just telling his fans about it. Then, when we heard that he was exploring legal issues with his lawyers, that actually seemed like the wrong approach to take, even if he was upset about things. According to various reports, right before the show aired, Fox finally reached out to him and explained that what they did was perfectly legal (probably true) and that Coulton should be happy for the exposure. Coulton's response was quite reasonable -- asking if that meant Fox would be crediting him. Since the answer was no, the promise of exposure rings a bit hollow.

That said, it's not entirely hollow -- because of Coulton's ability to whip up (completely reasonable) righteous indignation about this from his fans via social media. As he told Mashable in the link above:

"They were right. I did get exposure, but it didn't come from anything they did. It was sympathetic outrage on Twitter, and bloggers and journalists talking about how crazy it was."

[....] "Sometimes I forget that Twitter is something beyond just being snarky at the Oscars. All of a sudden something happens and you remember that this is an amazing, powerful tool." Coulton says. "My fans have a keen sense of justice, and this idea that we should be attributed for our work. People who are of the Internet realize that attribution is what we trade on."

And, of course, he's taken it a step further as well, re-releasing his original song on iTunes, but calling itBaby Got Back (In the Style of Glee) and promising to donate the proceeds to two charities associated with Glee: The VH1 Save the Music Foundation and the It Gets Better Project. Song sales are doing well, with Coulton's version climbing the charts, while the official Glee version of the song is riddled with one star reviews from his supportive fans (even though he's not encouraging people to do this) and is nowhere to be found on the charts.

Still, what strikes me as perhaps most interesting about all of this is that as you explore the legal issues, it is entirely possible to come out with an argument that says that if anyone is infringing on copyright here... it's Jonathan Coulton. Let me be clear on this: I am not saying that anyone has directly accused him of this, nor am I suggesting (in any way) that he should be accused of this. I'm just showing how misaligned the law is with what most people think of as a sensible regime today. So why might Coulton be in trouble? As he's noted repeatedly, he paid the compulsory license to cover the song via the Harry Fox Agency. Doing so means that he agreed (pdf) to abide by Section 115 of the Copyright Act.

A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.

Previously, we and many others had suggested that the changes that what Coulton had made could possibly be protected as unique creative works. However, he more or less gave up that claim when he used the statutory license, rather than doing a direct deal with Sir Mix A Lot, or whoever else holds the rights on the song. That also means, however, that Coulton did not live up to Section 115 and his cover, in all likelihood, violates the original copyrights, because the license he got does not cover the very different arrangement and melody he created.

That is, by any normal measure, insane. But that's the law. This whole situation has (ridiculously) exposed Jonathan Coulton as a "pirate" and Fox as being perfectly within the law. And that just seems silly.

from the social-mores dept

We've talked about Jonathan Coulton and his embrace of the internet and new business models plenty on Techdirt -- as well as his nuanced arguments concerning copyright infringement. He's not "pro-piracy," but recognizes that the overall growth of the internet that has resulted in more infringement has also created tremendously valuable tools and services that made his music career possible. Thus, recognizing that the two things go hand in hand, he notes that it's better in the long run. So what does he do when someone infringes on his rights? Well, he goes public.

And then there's the Glee version, which is quite similar, and includes a few of Coulton's own additions:

Yes, his is a cover song, but he introduced some variations that appear to be directly copied in Glee. Is there a potential copyright claim here? Well, that depends -- and the copyright law here is complex. You can cover a song by paying compulsory license fees, and Fox likely did that to whoever holds the copyright on the original. But they copied specific changes (and possibly the music) that Coulton added, which could potentially be covered by his own copyright (of course, whether or not he registered them could also impact what he could do about it). And let's not even get into the issue of things like sync licenses for video, and the (still open) question of whether or not Glee actually used part of Coulton's own recording.

In the end, though, almost none of that probably matters. Because Coulton seems unlikely (we hope) to go legal here. Instead, he's just going with the public shame route -- with a simple tweet about the situation, which has set off "the internet" to help him make his case and embarrass Fox and Glee.

Internet sleuths immediately went to work on the question, creating side-by-side comparisons of the audio (which are very convincing) and even unearthing an official Fox version of the as-yet-unreleased single in the Swedish iTunes store. While the track is not currently available in the American store, gaming blog Kotaku claims that it “was available earlier and was pulled by Fox.” Despite calls from Twitter and multiple media organizations, the network has yet to make a statement as of this afternoon, but, all things considered, it’s looking pretty bad for Glee.

Of course, as a public storm of support rises behind Coulton, it seems likely that Fox/Glee producers will step up, apologize and probably cut Coulton a check of some sort. All of that seems a lot more efficient -- and it didn't require copyright law at all. Just a bit of public shaming for a bad actor. Of course, just imagine if the situation had been reversed, and Coulton was caught making use of a News Corp.-owned song. In that case, you'd have to imagine that the cease and desist letters and lawyers would have popped up quite quickly....

from the sing-a-song-of-copyright dept

AdamR alerts us to the news that a bunch of castmembers from the hit TV show Glee are apparently quite upset that they're not seeing royalties from the super successful CD from the TV show.

After their latest record, "Glee: The Music -- Journey to Regionals" landed at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 chart in June, star Mark Salling said he'd seen "not a dime" of royalty payments from label Sony Music.

Co-star Corey Montieth told Toby Knapp's DC 99.5 radio show: "I got 400 bucks from it going No. 1. But you know what, that's OK, because if I'm patient, and if this thing does really well, maybe I'll see another 400 bucks."

...
"The 'Glee' cast is furious because they feel they were misled by Sony," a source said. "They have all complained to Ryan that they want a bigger share of the royalties."

Well, that's how RIAA accounting works. Though, amusingly, the article notes that this is leading castmembers to make sure not to sign directly with Sony for recording deals, choosing to work with competitors instead (of course, with the major labels, they all cut deals like this). Either way, with the cast suddenly learning about music royalties, it makes you wonder if the show will stop ignoring them.

from the mixed-messages dept

Sage Ross points us to an interesting writeup by Christina Mulligan at the Yale Law School's Information Society Project, noting the somewhat mixed messages Hollywood gives people on derivative creativity. Specifically, she talks about the TV show Glee, which I have to confess to never having watched (nor even knowing anything about the show other than that it exists, and people talk about it). Apparently, however, it's about a fictional high school chorus, and while the show takes on all sorts of meaty social issues, it also displays regular acts of remixing and other forms of derivative works, many of which might get folks sued in the real world, but which never mention copyright issues:

...a video of Sue dancing to Olivia Newton-John's 1981 hit Physical is posted online (damages for recording the entirety of Physical on Sue's camcorder: up to $300,000). And let's not forget the glee club's many mash-ups -- songs created by mixing together two other musical pieces. Each mash-up is a "preparation of a derivative work" of the original two songs' compositions -- an action for which there is no compulsory license available, meaning (in plain English) that if the Glee kids were a real group of teenagers, they could not feasibly ask for -- or hope to get -- the copyright permissions they would need to make their songs, and their actions, legal under copyright law. Punishment for making each mash-up? Up to another $150,000 -- times two.

So here we are with a hit TV program, showing off how kids are doing all sorts of almost certainly infringing derivative works... at the same time we're told (by the same Hollywood folks) that such works are illegal. And, this isn't some random "well, they could sue but they don't" situation:

You might be tempted to assume that this tension isn't a big deal because copyright holders won't go after creative kids or amateurs. But they do: In the 1990s, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) asked members of the American Camping Association, including Girl Scout troops, to pay royalties for singing copyrighted songs at camp. In 2004, the Beatles' copyright holders tried to prevent the release of The Grey Album -- a mash-up of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album -- and only gave up after massive civil disobedience resulted in the album's widespread distribution. Copyright holders even routinely demand that YouTube remove videos of kids dancing to popular music. While few copyright cases go to trial, copyright holders like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) don't hesitate to seek stratospheric damage awards when they do, as in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset filesharing case.

As the article notes, these mixed messages may be confusing, but in the end, most people know which side actually makes sense, and it's not the side that the law is on right now:

These worlds don't match. Both Glee and the RIAA can't be right. It's hard to imagine glee club coach Will Schuester giving his students a tough speech on how they can't do mash-ups anymore because of copyright law (but if he did, it might make people rethink the law). Instead, copyright violations are rewarded in Glee -- after Sue's Physical video goes viral, Olivia Newton-John contacts Sue so they can film a new, improved video together.

So what should you do in real life if you and your friends, inspired by Glee, want to make a mash-up, or a new music video for a popular song? Should you just leave this creativity to the professionals, or should you become dirty, rotten copyright violators?

Current law favors copyright holders. But morally, there's nothing wrong with singing your heart out. Remixing isn't stealing, and copyright isn't property. Copyright is a privilege -- actually six specific privileges -- granted by the government. Back in 1834, the Supreme Court decided in Wheaton v. Peters that copyrights weren't "property" in the traditional sense of the word, but rather entitlements the government chose to create for instrumental reasons. The scope and nature of copyright protection are policy choices -- choices that have grown to favor the interests of established, rent-seeking businesses instead of the public in general.

The Constitution allows Congress to pass copyright laws to "promote the progress of science" -- a word often used in the 18th century to mean "knowledge". The stated purpose of the original 1790 copyright statute was to encourage learning. So you tell me -- what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?

It's a good post and well worth reading the whole thing. But what I find interesting is that Mulligan doesn't even touch on the fact that these mixed messages are coming from the same place. The same folks who produce, distribute and broadcast Glee are the folks who insist copyright is property and that the current laws are just and good. But, even they must know, conceptually, that there's a mismatch between what the law says today and what people actually do.